A poll

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj965hq8dq842caq9&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1hp2hppx]133|200[/hv]

 

Partner of course was out of tempo with her Pass over 2♥.

 

The opponents call the director.

 

As the director you conduct a poll. 12 players are polled. 9 say they would double. 2 say they would pass or double. 1 says he would pass.

 

According to regulation 1 in 4 is considered a significant number. Although there is a conflicting regulation that says that if more than 75% choose an action then there are no logical alternatives.

 

Do you remove the double?

 

Do you agree with the poll - would you think that more or less would protect here?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj965hq8dq842caq9&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1hp2hppx]133|200[/hv] Partner of course was out of tempo with her Pass over 2♥. The opponents call the director. As the director you conduct a poll. 12 players are polled. 9 say they would double. 2 say they would pass or double. 1 says he would pass. According to regulation 1 in 4 is considered a significant number. Although there is a conflicting regulation that says that if more than 75% choose an action then there are no logical alternatives. Do you remove the double? Do you agree with the poll - would you think that more or less would protect here?

IMO X = 10, 2♠ = 8, P=7.

For some players their action would depend on vulnerability and scoring.

I feel that many "actively ethical" players would pass after the hesitation. Nevertheless....

 

Of twelve players pollled, one would pass and two would "pass or double". Hence "Pass" seems to fail the "1 in 4" test for significance.

Nine players would double and two players would "pass or double" so "Double" seems to satisfy the "more than 75%" criterion of the regulation.

 

The director should abide by the poll and allow the double.

 

Specifying a protocol for directors (including objective criteria) is a big step forward; but these criteria need clarification and refinement. For example, how do they adapt to cases where there are several logical alternatives. I think those polled should also be asked to assess what action a BIT would suggest.

[blackshoe]

1. No.

2. Depends. My regular partner almost never protects, the folks over in the "B" section probably don't even know what the word means. Folks in the "A" section would almost certainly double here. IAC, it doesn't matter whether I agree with it - if I'm just going to toss out polls with which I disagree, I might as well not conduct them at all.

[hotShot]

As TD, I would not allow the double since the BIT clearly suggests not to pass.

As member of an AC, I would grant that it's close enough to give the money back......

[bluejak]

Let me just check please: am I correct?

 

9 players would not only choose double but would not seriously consider pass?

1 player would not only choose pass but would not seriously consider double?

 

Or, to put it another way, was the poll conducted as follows:

 

"What actions would you consider?"

"Furthermore, which action would you choose?"

[TimG]

As TD, I would not allow the double since the BIT clearly suggests not to pass.

That's not the only criteria which must be satisfied. One that you have not mentioned, the one that is the crux of this problem, is whether Pass is a logical alternative.

[Bbradley62]

Out of curiosity: is it common to poll so many players about a hand like this?

[bluejak]

Not necessarily. TDs and ACs make judgements based on various factors. If a TD asks a player for an opinion, what the player says might in some cases be enough. Just using figures is not really enough.

[campboy]

There is another issue with the poll: did the TD check that the players polled would not have doubled earlier?

[Cascade]

IMO X=10 P=7.

For some players their action would depend on vulnerability and scoring.

I feel that many "actively ethical" players would pass after the hesitation. Nevertheless....

 

Of twelve players pollled, one would pass and two would "pass or double". Hence "Pass" seems to fail the "1 in 4" test for significance.

Nine players would double and two players would "pass or double" so "Double" seems to satisfy the "more than 75%" criterion of the regulation.

 

The director should abide by the poll and allow the double.

 

Specifying a protocol for directors (including objective criteria) is a big step forward; but these criteria need clarification and refinement. For example, how do they adapt to cases where there are several logical alternatives. I think those polled should also be asked to assess what action a BIT would suggest.

 

My mistake I forgot to include the scoring. It was Matchpoints. The vulnerability should be shown as ALL.

 

I am not convinced that that is a correct application of the regulation.

 

The regulation says:

 

"Law 16B1(B) For the purpose of this Law, a significant number is defined as more than one in four Players.

 

This means that, if it is judged that more than 75% of the class of Players in question, using the same partnership methods, would select the same action as that taken by the Player in receipt of the unauthorised information, then the Director shall proceed on the basis that no other logical alternative actions exist."

 

However there is a conflict with the law and between the two paragraphs since for the law a "significant proportion" are only required to "seriously consider" an action.

 

Since 3 of 12 players would either Pass or choose Pass or Double and it is not known whether any of the 9 players who choose double would have "seriously considered" Pass then Pass seems to meet the 1 in 4 standard of "significant proportion" in the law to be a logical alternative.

 

On the other hand the second paragraph allows for no logical alternative if more than 75% "would select" that action. The poll shows exactly 75% (9 of 12) who would select the double.

 

In my mind there is certainly a case that the poll suggests that the threshold for logical alternative has been met and that the threshold for no logical alternative has not been met. Of course you might need to make some allowance for inaccuracy in the poll.

[Cascade]

Let me just check please: am I correct?

 

9 players would not only choose double but would not seriously consider pass?

1 player would not only choose pass but would not seriously consider double?

 

Or, to put it another way, was the poll conducted as follows:

 

"What actions would you consider?"

"Furthermore, which action would you choose?"

 

Sorry I only have the numbers as reported to me I do not know the precise questions asked.

 

I wonder whether any of the 9 who would double would actually give serious consideration to Pass. My feeling is probably some would but I cannot be sure without knowing the question asked.

 

My impression was that the 2 who expressed doubt were not sure whether at the table they would Pass or Double rather than they were the only ones who would serious consider Pass.

[Cascade]

Out of curiosity: is it common to poll so many players about a hand like this?

 

I am more inclined to ask the question differently:

 

is it common to poll so few players about a hand like this?

 

The answer is of course yes for practical reasons.

 

However the smaller the sample the less reliable the results would be.

 

Witness I conducted my own smaller poll on this hand (the poll numbers shown was done by the director). The result of my poll of four players was 1 who would Double but consider Pass (and who would not Double with the UI), 1 who would Double or Pass, 2 who would Pass but consider Double.

[Cascade]

There is another issue with the poll: did the TD check that the players polled would not have doubled earlier?

 

Good point.

[bluejak]

While in general I tend to expect to follow regulations and interpretations of authorities I do not believe one should necessarily do so when they are in conflict with the Laws. The advice, which seems to be repeated on the Welsh website, seems to have emanated from a confused discussion when the Law book was just coming out, and I think we should follow the Law.

 

As regards Australia and New Zealand, I have asked my friends about this advice and am told the matter will be discussed at a meeting between relevant Australians and New Zealanders in January. As regards Wales, I am currently working on the advice.

 

The actual hand, it seems to me, suffers from the fact that the wrong questions were asked so the poll is not entirely helpful. First of all, did 1 in 4 [the ABF/NZB standard] seriously consider Pass? Ok, I think they did since one chose it, and three seemed willing to choose Pass or something else, in a poll of 12. In England where the number is considered roughly one in five it is clearer still, so serious consideration was given by a significant proportion.

 

Now, of those would 'some' have actually chosen it? Well, some means more than one, generally, but we only know of one. We need to know what the three who were in the 'pass or double' camp would actually choose. So long as one of them would pass, then pass is an LA, since some of them would choose it.

[nige1]

The regulation says:

 

"Law 16B1(B) For the purpose of this Law, a significant number is defined as more than one in four Players.

This means that, if it is judged that more than 75% of the class of Players in question, using the same partnership methods, would select the same action as that taken by the Player in receipt of the unauthorised information, then the Director shall proceed on the basis that no other logical alternative actions exist."

 

However there is a conflict with the law and between the two paragraphs since for the law a "significant proportion" are only required to "seriously consider" an action. Since 3 of 12 players would either Pass or choose Pass or Double and it is not known whether any of the 9 players who choose double would have "seriously considered" Pass then Pass seems to meet the 1 in 4 standard of "significant proportion" in the law to be a logical alternative.

 

On the other hand the second paragraph allows for no logical alternative if more than 75% "would select" that action. The poll shows exactly 75% (9 of 12) who would select the double.

 

In my mind there is certainly a case that the poll suggests that the threshold for logical alternative has been met and that the threshold for no logical alternative has not been met. Of course you might need to make some allowance for inaccuracy in the poll.

This regulation needs clarification. Only 1 in 4 have to consider a call for it to become a logical alternative: so I now concede that "Pass" is a logical alternative. It seems however that 9 of 12 would double and 2 more judge double to be 50-50, so IMO the 75% criterion is also satisfied. Hence, double is the only logical alternative.

 

With a different panel, 2♠ might have been another logical alternative.

 

Or imagine a case where a panel of five or more chose different calls. According to this regulation would there be no logical alternatives?

[bluejak]

No, Nigel this is the wrong approach. You are assuming someone who considers two calls only half considers them, which is wrong. If three people consider pass and double, that is three votes for considering pass and three votes for considering double, not one and a half votes for each.

 

As for five different cases, that has always been the thing that is wrong with the numbers game: if you have five equally likely possibilities, it is clear you have five logical alternatives.

[mgoetze]

Non-vul at MPs I would always double.

Vul at MPs I would tend to double but pass after partner's hesitation.

At IMPs I would never double.

[Cascade]

While in general I tend to expect to follow regulations and interpretations of authorities I do not believe one should necessarily do so when they are in conflict with the Laws. The advice, which seems to be repeated on the Welsh website, seems to have emanated from a confused discussion when the Law book was just coming out, and I think we should follow the Law.

 

As regards Australia and New Zealand, I have asked my friends about this advice and am told the matter will be discussed at a meeting between relevant Australians and New Zealanders in January. As regards Wales, I am currently working on the advice.

 

The actual hand, it seems to me, suffers from the fact that the wrong questions were asked so the poll is not entirely helpful. First of all, did 1 in 4 [the ABF/NZB standard] seriously consider Pass? Ok, I think they did since one chose it, and three seemed willing to choose Pass or something else, in a poll of 12. In England where the number is considered roughly one in five it is clearer still, so serious consideration was given by a significant proportion.

 

Now, of those would 'some' have actually chosen it? Well, some means more than one, generally, but we only know of one. We need to know what the three who were in the 'pass or double' camp would actually choose. So long as one of them would pass, then pass is an LA, since some of them would choose it.

 

So what was the source of this regulation that is written in Welsh, Australian and New Zealand regulations?

 

I am not convinced that we need of the two in the poll to choose Pass. If one of three in the poll choose Pass and we are satisfied that this is representative of the population then we can reasonably extropolate that some of the population would choose Pass.

[mycroft]

At matchpoints, I know people who would pass with this hand, but I'm not going to play with them.

 

Correction - I know several people who would pass 2H here - but that's only because they doubled the first time, and doubling again is seriously overstating their hand.

 

Who lets the opponents play two-of-a-fit without a known bad trump break at matchpoints? More people than I speak to on a regular basis, obviously. Newbie game? Yeah, pass is an LA, sorry. You have a problem with that? It's time to graduate into the game that your peers play. But I'm assuming this is a reasonable field. (Please note, for those people who complain that "strong players get rulings in their favour", that I made a ruling in the newbie game last weekend in favour of the UI holder that would be a no-brainer the other way in the "big" game. Sometimes being a better player helps, sometimes it hurts you).

 

Looking at ACBL casebooks (and in my experience on the floor), I see that an average poll is about 5 players. But our definition of "significant number" and "some" are more extreme than most of the rest of the world, so take that as you will.